AGEOD Forums

Well this time there is more than a single balloon: an engineer and two artillery regiments.
No comment.


Then comes the reconquest of New Orleans, with the terrible and invincible union division:
(See the "won but effectively lost" battle episode on the "Two battle questions this time !" post first)







Well, two whole healthy divisions against a single isolated and defeated (in theory) division in enemy lands – Results: a crushing dedeat and a whole division almost annihilated.
Seriously, are these results really coherent since CSA won the battle a turn before with a single division ?
Its normal that assaulting an entrenched stack involves high causalities but in this case the results are a little bit excessive given the battle conditions IMHO.
Should I bring my whole Army of the Potomac and Army of the Tennessee to defeat a single division and to get back New Orleans or is it still not enough ?
An other thing: is it really coherent that a fully isolated army (forts around the city are still there) in the depths of enemy territory can still receive supplies and most of all still receive reinforcements ?
Last thing, I can see an insignificant power for this stack on the map popup (the black one that displays when you pass the cursor on the stack): 3/3.
Evidently, these numbers are incorrect as you can see in the battle reports, could it be a bug there?

I must say my opponent and me are having a great PBEM game but to be honest, those battle incoherent results are spoiling it a bit.

deleted

Well, those battles really cost me a lot

New Orleans looks to me like an attack against entrenched enemy with less than 2:1 forces.

What was CSA cohesion?
Who had better artillery?
Who had better leaders? [attack, defense values]
Were CSA units already partly damaged?
What ROE were in effect?

etc. etc.....

In this case, pictures are worth about 5 words. Battle Log would explain much better...

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Yes, I would think that an attack against an entrenched enemy at less that 2 to 1 odds could very easily end up with battle results similar to the historical battle of Fredericksburg.

So Winder is the CSA equivalent of Burnside?

deleted

lodilefty:

-CSA cohesion: full
-Artillery: for CSA, 1 x 20lb - 6 x 12lb - 1 x 6lb
for USA, 2 x art of unknown type
-Better leaders: as you can see on the battle report, CSA: 3,2,2
USA: 2,0,1
-CSA units already partly damaged: As I said, 2 divison of full health
-ROE: yellow - yellow


I agree with you 100% Gray, but I maintain that in this case the results are exaggerated.

deleted

Yea, I know, I was already there three updates earlier, you could indeed lost a whole army in a single battle.
How can you explain the first battle result however? It has nothing to do with entrenchment and ratio and what about the fact that US stack in New Orleans receive reinforcements ?

Inside686 wrote:Yea, I know, I was already there three updates earlier, you could indeed lost a whole army in a single battle.
How can you explain the first battle result however? It has nothing to do with entrenchment and ratio and what about the fact that US stack in New Orleans receive reinforcements ?

I dont think anyone can explain the first battle result...or indeed these (as a follow on from the first result). I think its because its all down to accepting without question by the whole fraternity what goes on in the game engine underneath that your original post on this has received the 'flippant' answers that it has.

Truth is Inside you have to just live with it....the internal workings of the results of AACW are as mysterious as the origins of life itself

KILLER BUTLER FTW

Ehm sorry Inside..but my army is not isloated..you don`t drestroyed the depot

lodilefty wrote:New Orleans looks to me like an attack against entrenched enemy with less than 2:1 forces.

What was CSA cohesion?
Who had better artillery?
Who had better leaders? [attack, defense values]
Were CSA units already partly damaged?
What ROE were in effect?

etc. etc.....

In this case, pictures are worth about 5 words. Battle Log would explain much better...

Also, add weather, and isn't New Orleans a swamp region? I have won an assault against a entrenched foe in a fort w/ 2to1 odds. But I do think it is not out of the realm of possibility to lose said battle as well.

I've been sieging Ft. Monroe the whole game I'm currently playing. Using a 450-650 pt. Div.+ vs 150-250 pt defender. Just can't dislodge the SOB.
*shrug* You take your shot and move on. There are other battles to win.

Dudosh wrote:KILLER BUTLER FTW

Ehm sorry Inside..but my army is not isloated..you don`t drestroyed the depot

Ok for the supplies but the men, where do they come from?

I've been sieging Ft. Monroe the whole game I'm currently playing

You too ?

deleted

About the first example, the Battle of Cairo:

Don't infer that all forces were fully engaged. It's possible that, after an unlucky first battle round fought at long range on limited frontage (think artillery duel), with just a small portion of the Southerners combatting all of the Northerners--after that, by one-in-a-hundred chance the South decided to retreat from the fight. Look in the battle log, marvel at all the factors and complex interactions that enter into computing battle results, and you'll see how this might be possible.

And it's not as if a small force holding off a much larger force is totally unheard of. Remember the Alamo? What if General Santa Anna had decided to call off the attack after the first unsuccessful assault?

I'm not troubled much by results such as these. I would be disturbed if they were commonplace. I'd be equally disturbed if weird battle results absolutely never ever happened.

Hi!
Don't see anything wrong in the first battle report except the "CSA Defeat" title, awarded because of higher losses, probably.
By looking at the "Captured units" icon on the battle report it seems the south wiped the engineers and captured both arty units, losing 150 men in the process.
Not a bad at all result for the CSA on my book. No matter the report says its a defeat or a victory.
The New Orleans are not so extravagant neither. Attacking with less than 2 to 1 advantage on awful terrain for attack (Swamp) should not be an easy win for the south even against Butler.
On this second battle, the most questionable issue IMHO is the excessive aggressiveness of the attackers. 5 battles seems to many... Are this results from a game version with the excessive losses issue already tweaked?

In any case, players complain both about too weak defense or too strong defense... maybe this means the combat system is pretty well balanced .
IMHO, on real ACW battles results shit happened on a regular basis.
There are tons of real battles results weirder than many of the AACW game battle results. So i'm pretty happy battles are not that predictable on game.

Regards!

arsan wrote:Hi!
Don't see anything wrong in the first battle report except the "CSA Defeat" title, awarded because of higher losses, probably.
<snip>
Regards!

Yes, the game does this to signify a Phyrric Victory...